The Wanganui Chronicle. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1946. THIRD DIVISION VEHICLES

Wanganui Chronicle, 5 October 1946, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1946. THIRD DIVISION VEHICLES

'yill-l debate in the House of Representatives on the report pre- ! sented by flu- Committee which investigated charges against l the Army of sending unsuitable vehicles to combat areas was dis- | appointing. There seemed to he no facing of issues as the public | will see them. Mr. (1. Laing, Government Inspector of Motor Vehicles, should possess high qualifications to justify his holding the position he now occupies. If he does not hold those qualifications which justify his appointment, why was lie appointed in the first place and why is he being retained in that office? If he does hold those qualifications and his appointment and retention were justified, then how comes it 1o be necessary for him to petition Parlament in order to bring to light what he, in his expert opinion, believes to be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs which might have involved the lives of many men in facing- a ruthless enemy" From the outset the position which developed was unsatisfactory. Early in 1943 this highly placed official made serious charges by memorandum that the vehicles which were sent to New Caledonia were unsuitable for the purposes required. These charges I were made the subject of enquiry by a committee comprising Sir 1 William Perry, Mr. Adam Hamilton and Mr. Osborne, the Labour J member for Onehunga. There is a conflict of evidence as to what 1 occurred prior to the setting up of that committee, Mr. Laing ! alleging and Mr. Fraser denying that the Prime Minister took a I serious view of the matter. Mr. Laing, rightly or wrongly, felt so | strongly on the matter that he followed up his memorandum to the I Prime Minister with a petition to Parliament. Mr. Laing, must, therefore, have been cither very sure of his ground or not very I sound in his judgment. If the former proved to be the case, why j was his request, not acceded to? If his judgment, was unsound, why was he retained as a responsible Government official. If the Government was satisfied that the Perry Report provided the answer to Mr. Laing's apprehensions, why was he not provided immediately with a copy of that report, and why was this report kept from him until it was produced during the recent I enquiry ? Evidently no attempt was made to bring Mr. Laing to ■ a more healthy frame of mind by attempting to remove the apprehensions which ho entertained, it cannot be said that, such conduct | on the part of the Government tended to clear up the matter. That the situation was not satisfactory from an administrative

point of view is clear from a statement made during the debate hy Mr. Macdonald, the Member for Mataura, who said:

I “Laing was armed with letters from Major-General Duigau I dated 1939. the Prime Minister 1941. the Army Secretary 1940 and i he Minister of Supply 1942, giving him the right of entry to Army i amps and Government departments. Ou the other hand Brigadier ' Avery in evidence said that soon after he took office in 1940 rela-

tions became strained and he instructed his officers that Laing had no connection whatever with the Army and they were forbidden to leal with him.’’

If this recital of the facts is a correct one it reveals that ther

. as administrative muddlement of alarming dimensions in 1940. if the Army required vehicles from America and expert knowledge was required to purchase standard types, why was such important ’..ork entrusted io Messrs. Coates and Langstone. who never posed .s experts on anything at all ? If non-experts could be entrusted 'o buy standard trucks, what was the function of the Government mspeetor of Motor-vehicles’? It would seem that it was no more ■tan that ol a supervisor of maintenance. If this was so why was his expert knowledge—assuming he had it—not availed of when sending other than new trucks overseas for service with the Third New Zealand Divisions in the Pacific ? It would seem that here was a field in which he was specifically able to function with advantage and that he had ample authority from those who should have been in control at the time to arm him with that authority. Yet it appears that his contribution was decisively not wanted. It is pertinent to ask why ?

, Mr. Laing received information, which he believed to be satisfactory, indicating that all was not well with the Army trucks that were sent overseas. Here again there is a conflict of testimony in that. General Puttk-k ami Brigadier Avery assert that they had taken all steps to see that suitable vehicles were sent to the Pacific. -Mr. Laing asked for a public enquiry, to which the Government members of the committee turn a deaf ear, recommending that nothing shall be done. The Prime .Minister invites Mr. Laing to lay himself open to a libel action, but this is surely the most unsatisfactory procedure that any man can suggest for the conduct of public business. -Mr. Laing may be wholly wrong in his opinion; he may lune been misled by these who passed on to him the information concerning the unsuitability of the vehicles, or of some of them, in the field. But that does not seem to be a tenable suggestion just now seeing that he is retained in his position as Government Inspector ol Motor-vehicles. A man in his position should not be so incompetent as the committee’s recommendation implies. The committee found that, while some unsuitable vehicles were sent to New' Caledonia in January and February, 1943, men’s lives were not jeopardised because of that. The uommiltee also reported that the petitioner failed to substantiate the extent to which unsuitaole vehicles were sent. Mr. Laings resonrtes and opportunities could hardly be adequate to such a task, ami such a burden should not be cast upon him. Tile question which the committee should have investigated was whether there was sufficient evidence to merit the enquiry being made. The committee was not required to throw upon Mr. Laing the whole task of undertaking out of his own resources lhe work of .such enquire-. I he merits or demerits of -Mr. Laing’s charges are one thing : the way he has been dealt with is another. If his apprehensions could have been allayed by the Perry Commission’s report, an at tempt should have been made to use the document to that end. That no such attempt was made is open to unhappy interpretations: that Mr. Laing is required to establish his whole case, thereby fulfilling the function of the enquiry for which he asks, is asking too inueli of him and the Prime Minister's invitation to him to risk a libel action in order to fulfil a public duty is unfair.